Human Resources Committee on April 18th, 2018

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Do they have a copy of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I want to make sure that we're clear, because we haven't seen the tabled amendment as of yet.

Go ahead, MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Can I get direction from officials on part II of the Canada Labour Code? What is your advice on the wording here and of removing the minister?

You do have a copy, right?

[Barbara Moran]

Yes.

Off the top, I'd suggest that you'd have to think about what the intention of this amendment is. If the concern is trying to address the potential for political interference, for example, is it relative to all of part II—what I'll call tripping hazards and things like that—or is it mostly limited to what C-65 is trying to address, which is harassment and violence? That would be off the top.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Does it actually matter? If it's a tripping hazard, does it matter if it's the minister or the deputy minister?

[Barbara Moran]

I would have to check and talk to folks.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Should we maybe suspend?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to answer Ms. Damoff.

I would say yes and no: no, because if you have a hazard issue in your office, it's not a big problem, but if the minister makes an inquiry into a political office, then this is a back door to do exactly the same kind of political interference. That's why my colleague is so adamant about building a firewall without a back door. This could be the back door: not necessarily harassment, but it could give a new power to the current or then minister to enter by a back door to go into a riding office or member's office and then be able to access some potentially sensitive information because of an inquiry. That's why my colleague is so adamant and why we believe this conversation is so important and has to be settled at the political level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'll go to MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It was changed to the minister, though, when you were in government. This isn't adding it in this bill. It was already in there. We're not adding extra powers for the minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

They are whispering in my ear that this bill is the first time that it applies to Parliament. That is why it's important to keep a firewall.

The problem is that the firewall is there only for harassment, not other issues. That may seem like a detail, but it would allow an ill-intentioned minister to meddle in a political office, regardless of their party. If the suggested amendment were passed, the minister would not be able to access it when it is related to politics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I would like to add that these are small details, but, as you know, democracy is fragile, and as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. So I think it's an important aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We want to make sure we're doing this correctly, including procedurally correctly.

MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Could suspend for five minutes so that the officials can confer, and we can confer among ourselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Sure, that sounds good.

Do I have unanimous consent that, when the bells start ringing shortly, we can continue for at least 15 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We have 25 minutes and 24 seconds until our vote. We'll try to use the next 10 minutes or so to the best of our ability.

MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Could the officials assist us in getting our intent into wording?

Our intent is that the minister be removed from involvement in anything to do with political staff. We thought we would do this using all of part II of the Canada Labour Code. If you have better wording, that's fine, too. Are there any unseen issues with its being part II of the Canada Labour Code?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Ms. Moran.

[Barbara Moran]

I'm not a drafter of legislation. I don't have that background, so I wouldn't be able to recommend specific language to make the amendment you've brought forward apply to all of part II.

In response to your question, is there a material difference for the labour—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I know there is a material difference, but is there a problem?

[Barbara Moran]

Is there a problem with how it would operate practically? Not particularly. Under part II, currently, for example, the department is delegated those responsibilities. In practice, this legislative change would not make much of a difference for my colleagues in operations. It's a change in who ultimately has the power, but, in reality, it's all delegated down to the department.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Should we say, “under part II of the Canada Labour Code, including occurrences of harassment and violence”, or should we say, “under part II of the Canada Labour Code involving a member of the Senate”? Or does that matter?

[Barbara Moran]

Again, I'm not a drafter. I don't know that you'd want to include those qualifiers, “harassment and violence” and so on.